USA Politics

maidenn.c.indiana said:
Yes I think it's what should happen to him. He had no problem setting off bombs to hurt and kill others did he. Of course I also know that this won't happen. Like I stated before I don't believe they'll take him alive, but if they did , I say whats good for the goose is good for the gander
Click to expand...
You're the person the Constitution protects Americans against. Congratulations.
 
The congratulations is not needed. You don't have to worry about me because I am a law abiding citizen. I just beliebe that justice could be delivered a little more swiftly in this country.
 
The procession of justice is meted out according to the core founding document. So what you are is a hypocrite. Oh, and that bow and arrows comment? Jesus, go learn some history.
 
You know what LooseCannon I'm not going to argue with you. Apparently you believe that this punks rights outweigh the victims rights. If that's the way you feel, fine that's your right. At the same time I have the right to think that somebody ought to give a fuck about the rights of the victims. Let's not forget about the MIT cop that was just doing his job and will now never go home again to his loved ones. If caring more about the victims and their rights than the criminals rights makes me a hypocrite, then fine and i'll wear that as a badge of honor. As far as learning history, since I minored in it in college I really don't think there's anything you're going to be able to teach me. It might help if you learned to recognize a smart ass retort.
 
Wait a minute, LC is making more objective statements and your comments are more filled with emotion (wrath/revenge?).

LC looks at the law, and it's good there is one, not? Or else there will be a lynch mob before it's even been proven these kids did it.
 
Yeah I am emotional about this, you're right. Maybe they didn't bomb the marathon. But they did kill the MIT cop, throw explosives out of their vehicle, and get into a gunfight with the police which led to the death of the older brother.Circumstancial evidence maybe but if the kid ain't guilty, well all day long long on the news they've shown supposed family members asking him to turn himself in. If you've got nothing to hide then give up. All the news channels are covering this, it's not like they're going to shoot his ass on live T.V.
 
I haven't forgotten about the victims. I'm saying that the rule of law means blanket protections for everyone, criminals or victims. When you say that I believe the accused's rights are greater than the victims, you're creating a strawman for you to beat up. You're not arguing against what I've actually said, however, you're arguing against what you want me to have said. Let me tear that strawman down for you.

At no point did I say the accused have more rights than the victims. They have the exact same rights, according to the US Constitution, rights which are said to be inalienable. The victims have the right to see the accused arrested, placed on trial, and punished - which may include an execution, of course, in the USA. But what you're talking about is revenge, not justice. There is no right to revenge for the victims. There is a right to justice, but not revenge, for the victims. Western societies treat rights as sacrosanct because we consider them greater than our individual lives. Let me say that in a slightly different way: police officers die trying to arrest, not kill, suspects on sight because rights are that important. Soldiers have died in wars for rights, even though it may not have been necessary. Rights are more important than anything - even lives. They are the core of our western values. Without them we have nothing, and so we have to be careful in any situation where we are looking at a criminal, because when we strip their rights, we put our own at danger.

Boston is a beautiful city, and the people there are good, hard-working folk who don't deserve this sort of attack, this sort of terrorism. Knowing that a police officer, a young, hard-working man who just wanted to make a difference in his world died doing his job fills me with sadness. I want to see the persons responsible brought to justice, but that means justice, not vengeance. Why do I want justice? Because we are better than the people who would attack us. We are stronger, smarter, more humanitarian, and we are more capable of both mercy and mediation. And we need to prove this, over and over, every time. When we lose that, when we lose what we've fought for, and died for, over the centuries, when we stop taking those truths as self-evident, then we lose ourselves. We become no better than the abyss of dictatorships and monarchies and tyrannies that Western democracy has striven to pull itself above since the Americans changed what we try to be.

We are more, we are better. We are a society ruled by law, not emotion. Unless we allow it, we cannot be shaken by fear, nor can we be overwhelmed by anger. When we deny anyone their rights, even a brutal, murdering, bombing, cop-killing terrorist, we hurt ourselves more than the bomber ever could. That's how they win. Don't let them win.
 
LooseCannon said:
I haven't forgotten about the victims. I'm saying that the rule of law means blanket protections for everyone, criminals or victims. When you say that I believe the accused's rights are greater than the victims, you're creating a strawman for you to beat up. You're not arguing against what I've actually said, however, you're arguing against what you want me to have said. Let me tear that strawman down for you.

At no point did I say the accused have more rights than the victims. They have the exact same rights, according to the US Constitution, rights which are said to be inalienable. The victims have the right to see the accused arrested, placed on trial, and punished - which may include an execution, of course, in the USA. But what you're talking about is revenge, not justice. There is no right to revenge for the victims. There is a right to justice, but not revenge, for the victims. Western societies treat rights as sacrosanct because we consider them greater than our individual lives. Let me say that in a slightly different way: police officers die trying to arrest, not kill, suspects on sight because rights are that important. Soldiers have died in wars for rights, even though it may not have been necessary. Rights are more important than anything - even lives. They are the core of our western values. Without them we have nothing, and so we have to be careful in any situation where we are looking at a criminal, because when we strip their rights, we put our own at danger.

Boston is a beautiful city, and the people there are good, hard-working folk who don't deserve this sort of attack, this sort of terrorism. Knowing that a police officer, a young, hard-working man who just wanted to make a difference in his world died doing his job fills me with sadness. I want to see the persons responsible brought to justice, but that means justice, not vengeance. Why do I want justice? Because we are better than the people who would attack us. We are stronger, smarter, more humanitarian, and we are more capable of both mercy and mediation. And we need to prove this, over and over, every time. When we lose that, when we lose what we've fought for, and died for, over the centuries, when we stop taking those truths as self-evident, then we lose ourselves. We become no better than the abyss of dictatorships and monarchies and tyrannies that Western democracy has striven to pull itself above since the Americans changed what we try to be.

We are more, we are better. We are a society ruled by law, not emotion. Unless we allow it, we cannot be shaken by fear, nor can we be overwhelmed by anger. When we deny anyone their rights, even a brutal, murdering, bombing, cop-killing terrorist, we hurt ourselves more than the bomber ever could. That's how they win. Don't let them win.
Click to expand...

LC, you've already given too much time to this idiotic conversation.
 
So the suspect was granted U.S. citizenship on Sept. 11, 2012. That makes his attack an act of treason which means that he will be prosocuted by the Federal government and not the state if they catch him alive. Don't know the Massachusits state law, but the Federal government does have the death penalty, which Im sure he will receive. That's not vengeance, that's the law.
 
Treason? Nah:

Federal (wiki):
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
 
Cheers, street parties (of relief)....
But I am really intrigued by the lack of calls for long term improvement, when it comes to safety in society.

When someone enters a school, kills 3 times as many people as these brothers did, the whole nation is in grief, but politics do not respond. Not a fuck changes. Not even screening. Calls from the President, stories by victims, it doesn't matter. It stays as it is.

When someone kills 3 people (still terrible, but less terrible than a bigger amount of people) at a huge event, the whole nation is in awe and wants the guys caught, or some rather want them dead. As you can see in this film, I believe one journalist with the brain size of a pea asks the question "Why did you caught him alive?".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22229329

In spree shootings the "criminal" mostly does not survive (either suicide, either he was killed).
This time, the guys who were responsible fled. They remained alive and free. And that gave unrest. Not only because it's a possible danger, but also because nothing has been "done" yet. Consequence: one of the biggest manhunts ever.

Boston police announced via Twitter that Tsarnaev was in custody. They later wrote: "CAPTURED!!! The hunt is over. The search is done. The terror is over. And justice has won. Suspect in custody."

Is the terror over?

I am more like, now when comes the next ?

As long as weapons are as easily accessible as today, this will not end.

This was a party for the short term. The USA can be mighty proud of themselves, again for a short while.
Yes, these guys used explosives. But they killed less people than the ones who use legal weapons.
 
I like that they caught at least one of them alive. If they were both killed, we'd never learn the motives or anything else on why and how they did it. I dunno about the others, but I wanna know.
 
I think these guys have not much different motives from people who do spree killings.
They were losers, people who did not enjoy life.

I wouldn't count on terrorism on a greater scale, although they might have been inspired by the oldest brother's experiences in Russia(n states).

I must confess that there were no signs of discontent with the youngest brother. I guess he changed very fast. Which is suspicious. So I am also curious if factors (out or inside the USA) stimulated these guys to do this.
 
What's also interesting: The FBI followed the oldest brother for some years. Nothing came out of it. Now he is suddenly a terrorist. What went wrong? Was he too smart for the FBI, or did the FBI not do their job properly?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top